Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV09608, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09608    Hearing Date: May 19, 2025    Dept: 14

#5

Case Background

Plaintiff appears to allege some sort of intellectual property theft, that his idea for an advertisement was somehow stolen and sold to Ford Motor Company without recompense to Plaintiff.

No specific cause of action is listed or identified in any version of the complaint. The named defendants are Odet Beverly Hills Jewelers (“Odet”), Jay Leno (“Leno”), Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), and the County of Los Angeles (“County”).

Plaintiff’s original Complaint was filed on March 18, 2022.

On April 12, 2022, Defendant Odet filed its Answer.

On July 7, 2022, this court sustained Defendant County’s demurrer, with 30 days leave to amend. On July 26, 2022, this court sustained Defendant Ford’s demurrer, with 60 days leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on September 29, 2022.

On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint.

On July 27, 2023, the Court sustained Defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. The only remaining Defendant in this case is Defendant Odet Beverly Hills Jewelers (Odet).

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document styled a motion to compel discovery which the Court denied on December 12, 2024.

On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel discovery.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiff moves to compel discovery from dismissed Defendant Ford.

Decision

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED.

Discussion

On April 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a second motion to compel discovery. However, like the last motion, the document filed appears to be a declaration. Plaintiff alleges that the Ford Motor Company committed theft of an idea called “Go Further.” Plaintiff requests that Ford be compelled to produce record of a payment of $85,000 for “Go Further.”

Where there has been no timely response to a demand for the production of documents, the demanding party may seek an order compelling a response. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.300, subd. (b).)

Assuming this is a request for relief under Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.300, Plaintiff’s declaration fails to state he propounded a demand for production of documents as required under Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.030 or that Ford failed to respond. Additionally, Ford is no longer a party to this action and would not be subject to such a demand. (Code Civ. Proc., section 2031.010.) The declaration does not state that Plaintiff made a demand to Ford under the nonparty discovery procedures set forth in Code Civ. Proc., sections 2020 through 2022.  Therefore, Plaintiff failed to articulate any basis upon which the Court may grant a motion to compel discovery. Additionally, it does not appear this motion was served on Ford. The motion is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery is DENIED.